From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org,
Adam Litke <agl@us.ibm.com>, Andy Whitworth <apw@shadowen.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Consolidate lots of hugepage code
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:48:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041029034817.GY12934@holomorphy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041029033708.GF12247@zax>
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 01:37:08PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> wA lot of the code in arch/*/mm/hugetlbpage.c is quite similar. This
> patch attempts to consolidate a lot of the code across the arch's,
> putting the combined version in mm/hugetlb.c. There are a couple of
> uglyish hacks in order to cover all the hugepage archs, but the result
> is a very large reduction in the total amount of code. It also means
> things like hugepage lazy allocation could be implemented in one
> place, instead of six.
> As yet this is entirely untested, except on ppc64. Comments?
> Objections? Testing acks?
> Notes:
> - this patch changes the meaning of set_huge_pte() to be more
> analagous to set_pte()
> - does SH4 need special huge_ptep_get_and_clear()??
Further consolidation is premature given that outstanding hugetlb bugs
have the implication that architectures' needs are not being served by
the current arch/core split. I have at least two relatively major hugetlb
bugs outstanding, the lack of a flush_dcache_page() analogue first, and
another (soon to be a reported to affected distros) less well-understood.
Unless they're directly toward the end of restoring hugetlb to a sound
state, they're counterproductive to merge before patches doing so.
-- wli
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-29 3:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-29 3:37 [RFC] Consolidate lots of hugepage code David Gibson
2004-10-29 3:48 ` William Lee Irwin III [this message]
2004-11-07 17:20 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-11-07 19:20 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-11-07 19:30 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-11-07 21:09 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-11-07 21:22 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-11-07 22:49 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-11-20 15:38 ` Anton Blanchard
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20041029034817.GY12934@holomorphy.com \
--to=wli@holomorphy.com \
--cc=agl@us.ibm.com \
--cc=apw@shadowen.org \
--cc=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.